ITT we talk about British military kit , uniform and vehicles. Both historical and contemporary. Post whatever pics, questions or start any kind of discussions
There's something I really like about the British mid 20th century combat uniforms from around the 50s to the 70s. I think it's because of the tucked in shirts and the berets don't look ass like some other cunts
>>64983231Has anyone ever used a BV? How do they work?
>>64983237It makes water hot. Turn on hot water exists. More complex designs exist.
The Warrior?Such a bad vehicle. Can we talk about it?
>>64983256No.
>>64983263At least the Warrior didn't shake its troops deaf.
>>64983233Their berets looked better then because of the 10 inch crowns so they looked a bit floppier and sat better on the head imo. The current berets have 9 inch crowns and look too small and a bit silly imo, like the beret has a little tail. Miles better than the American beret thoughbeit
>>64983256>Can we talk about it?...
>>64983222So when is the platoon mortar coming back in the form of cheap disposable drones / loitering munitions?
>guys, i want a gun that can pen soviet btrs from the front from beyond their retaliatory range>also it can't use external power and it has to fit in a tiny ass mounting with like a foot of internal turret spacei actually like the rarden because it's such an interesting engineering specification to fit a specific rolelike it wasn't a great idea to put it into the warrior but that's not the guns fault
>>64983256I have friends that took them to war. None of them died by action or lack of action by a Warrior.
>>64983305>from beyond their retaliatory rangeBTRs were capable of frontally penetrating Warriors at some point?
>>64983309rarden wasn't designed for warrior, it was designed for scimitar
>>64983306That's all good, but none of them fought against the kind of peer enemy the vehicle was designed to go against.
>>64983311Ah, of course.
>>64983315Well that's all right then. Job jobbed.Would you like to discuss Martini Henry.
>>64983317scimitar... my beloved...
>>64983323Lever actions chomp up snow and potentially even mud, if you try to operate them from a prone position. It's why the action was ill-liked when it got involved in wars.
>>64983317The Chieftain called that the best reconnaissance vehicle ever the other day, week month whatever..
>>64983330Did it even have any real competition in its day?
>>64983299Idk, I can't imagine a platoon being able to carry enough drones to be useful and also accomplish their role as a rifle platoon. Maybe there could be a dedicated loitering munition platoon in the same way there's a dedicated mortar platoon in the company where they could transport a large number of in a lorry or a land rover
Regardless of performance the plastic furniture on the L85a1 and early a2s looked pretty kino. It gives like 90s futurist vibes
>>64983256What was wrong with it?
>>64985228>'autocannon' that's fed via 3 round clips, literal WW2 cannons were better than this>Coaxial is mounted upside down intentionally, it was never designed for this so it basically never works>No stabilizer, so it can't fire on the move either lmao, we sorted this shit out in the fucking 60's!>Lastly as if it wasn't even more embarrassing, no ATGM as standard issue, so it can't even properly harm tanks
>>64984452Plastic junk.
I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHAT YOU BRITBONGS THINK OF THE GLOCK 17 AND THE DMR AR10 YOU GUYS HAVE.
>>64983326Princess Anne had one you know?
>>64985386>we sorted this shit out in the fucking 60's!The Sherman had a stabilizer...
>>64985386>Vehicle is designed from the ground up to do a specific job (in this case, pop BMP's and equivalent lighter vehicles from a prepared position)>Antitank work would have been handled by other elements, especially the ATGM armed dismounts and supporting tanks>Preforms well enough outside of that role, but is very clearly optimised for itDo you know you're retarded? Or do you need more time to figure that out?
>>64983233I like the British DPM from the 80s-00s.>inb4 anon saying "yeah but muh thin pants muh rips"Wear M81 Woodland in 90-100F weather mid-day and UNIRONICALLY try to tell me it's better. At toughness, yes. But for not getting heatstroke from the thickness of the fabric and the dark colors roasting your ass in the sun? Holy shit it's so much better. It also seals ticks out better since it has zippers instead of just buttons. If it were cheaper here I'd have boxes of the shit. I also think the colors are a better choice for a much wider portion of the year and in general. And that's coming from a woodland lover. Random pic for visual; no clue where this was taken. Also, Euros, the fuck is with left-hand zippers on men's clothing seriously, WTF? Feels so wrong being used to right-hand zip.
>>64985414The glock 17 is a decent pistol and the l129a1 (the dmr ar10) is really accurate and nice to shoot. It's a bit heavy though and it can be annoying to carry when you're tabbing or hiking. And apparently for the first few years of its adoption they got the wrong scopes for it. It was supposed to get 7.62mm scopes but, they got ones with .50 bullet drop markers instead lol
>>64987846I remember telling someone on this board that M81 was too dark and that it was best when it was a little faded from being in the wash. He wasn't having it and started seething lol
>>64987846>likes zippersREMF detected
>>64988617Probably wasn't me but I get that. The thickness of the fabric is a killer on hot days, though. Woodland blends well but fuck are the uniforms thick and hot regardless of the colors used.>>64988664???
>>64987831>just never plan to counter-attackPerfidious Albion planning to just abandon continental Europe to its fate.
>>64990442Rear echelon mother fuckerIt's the British equivalent of POG
>>64990763Ah. Nah, I just hunt in surplus clothes. Having 10 surplus jumpsuits is cheaper than buying one new pair of hunting pants; the hunting section has been turned into a fucking fashion show. Fuck $200 pants and $80 thin stretch gloves somehow still made in China at that price.
>>64984452i am the exact reverse, i think it looks godawfulbut i think the upgraded a2 with rails everywhere looks like pure sexand i normally hate the look of rails
>>64987831uh, the cvrt was designed for thatit was a neat gun from the 60s, but warrior got the gun simply because it was already in service and could be installed with a minimum of fussthere were clearly better options available in the 80s, the budget and timeline just didn't allow for it
>>64990853I could tell from your original post tbf but, I wasn't the one who called you a REMF lol. Anyway it's a shame about the hunting clothes turning into overpriced cheaply made slop. I've noticed that's been the case in a lot of things lately. It's like they know the majority of consumers don't care or something>>64990891It's funny you should mention that because for me, the a2 is my least favourite variant in terms of looks. I always found it really blocky and inelegant. A bit like a brick. I like the a3 better it's sleeker and looks more aly and I don't mind the colour either. I agree with your opinion on rails though, I think they only looked good on the m4
>>64983273>Miles better than the American beret thoughbeitAgreed, these look horrible
>>64985386Don't forget that it didn't even have an electrical turret as first designed and the aim would wander while firing the gunYes it's an old vehicle but the goddamn BRDM-2 has an electrical turret
>>64991485embrace the block
>>64992438If the back wasn't so rectangular
>>64987831>Vehicle is designed from the ground up to do a specific job (in this case, pop BMP's and equivalent lighter vehicles from a prepared position)Which it sucks dick at, because the RARDEN has an embarrassing rate of fire, and even a crayon eating retard with a .50cal can pop BMP-1's.Now try doing it on the move, oh wait you can't! While the Bradley can.>Antitank work would have been handled by other elements, especially the ATGM armed dismounts and supporting tanksYes you're absolutely right, your 25 ton IFV totally shouldn't just have at least a single MILAN duct taped to the top and remotely operated from within the turret. That'd just make no sense at all.
>>64992119>Worn bent>Flat and shapeless>Large flash isn't doing them any favours Why do they wear them like that? The flashes can get in the way granted but, you can still mould them properly and they don't look too bad when you do
